Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0461

Case T-461/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Kaddour v Council

IO C 383, 17.10.2016, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

17.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/19

Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-461/16)

(2016/C 383/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damas, Syrie) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they relate and/or refer to the applicant;

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures (i) are an abuse of process and so a misuse of powers; and (ii) amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s right to good administration and right to an effective remedy and a fair trial.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 66 TFUE.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s rights to respect for his reputation and peaceful enjoyment of his property and the principle of proportionality.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the principle of non-discrimination.
Top